Why is Broad-Minded a Quirk?

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

It really seems like you're not so much interested in how the quirk is supposed to work, so much as interested in winning an argument about semantics on the internet.

I don't care about winning an argument, I have an opinion, that's all. But there seem to be a handful of participants who are keen, for whatever reason, to convince me that my opinion is wrong.

The example I gave was not a "house rule," it was an example of how the traits in question are intended to behave in-play,...

To me the very definition of a house rule is that you make a ruling that departs from the clear text based on what you think it should be.

... without some rules-lawyering semantic arguments.

Rules are written in words, so semantics are unavoidable, no matter what prejudices people may hold against the term. As for 'rules-lawyering', I notice it's a term used by GMs to denigrate people who disagree with them.

I certainly can't claim to be able to peer into the minds of the people at SJGames, yet considering the vast amount of context, I still feel quite confident in saying that it is not intended to work the way you are interpreting it.

I'm not interpreting it, I'm reading it's plain words. Others are attempting to interpret it because the description is clearly faulty but insist they are not. As for the 'intentions' of the designers, I think the problem with this trait is that the intentions were initially misdirected and never corrected.

You didn't answer the question, though. Which of those ways do you think Broad-Minded is intended to work in 4e?

I meant to imply that I don't think the condition of Broadminded as we see it today is the result of a clear and discernible intention. I think it's rather a result of INattention.

And I find it completely absurd that Attentive would be considered a "beneficial" quirk in the adventurer style that the rules were primarily designed for.

I believe the rules are designed to accomodate all kinds of play, including sedentary stories that involve little 'action'. Anyway, even an active adventurer can get a benefit out of Attentive because he can choose when/whether to do that kind of task. IMO, the potential pitfalls you detailed are such that they logically reduce Attentive to a perk from Single-minded.

[nerdvana]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I don't care about winning an argument, I have an opinion, that's all. But there seem to be a handful of participants who are keen, for whatever reason, to convince me that my opinion is wrong.

I don't feel your opinion is wrong, just based on a fallacy, I pointed out a part of the RAW on p162 that I think addresses that fallacy. Did you have a chance to review that and look at Broadminded in light of that part of the RAW?

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by nerdvana

That's exactly right, it is not in the descriptive text of the trait... because it doesn't have to be. It is expressly explained in the introductory text about mental quirks on p162 (providing a quote...) ... Since they put that text there, why would they need to duplicate it in every mental quirk? That's why they put it in the introductory text...

I wasn't disagreeing with the general description of traits being a contract with the GM, I was targetting the alleged specific content of the contract as it relates to Broadminded.

A player innocently buying this Quirk is told one thing by the rules and then, judging by comments here, is surprised by any of a variety of potential 'interpretations' by the GM to turn it into a real functional quirk.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Which limits when and where you perform long tasks. That's still disadvantageous compared to an un-quirked character.

I see what you're saying but to me it seems rather that it includes a drawback that you need to bear in mind to access the benefit. IMO it doesn't extinguish or fully counteract the benefit.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

A player innocently buying this Quirk is told one thing by the rules and then, judging by comments here, is surprised by any of a variety of potential 'interpretations' by the GM to turn it into a real functional quirk.

I must protest that any player reading Broad-Minded in the way you do could not then innocently buy it as a quirk. If you think you bought a massive, no-drawbacks reality alteration power as a quirk, innocent is not the right word.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by nerdvana

I don't feel your opinion is wrong, just based on a fallacy, I pointed out a part of the RAW on p162 that I think addresses that fallacy. Did you have a chance to review that and look at Broadminded in light of that part of the RAW?

I think I replied to this already, but with so many posts hapening quickly you may have missed it. Prior page- I'll come back with a post # ...

Post Number 174.

Also, Attentive is a sideline that is not really the core of my rationale on Broadminded, though they have a similar provenance.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I meant to imply that I don't think the condition of Broadminded as we see it today is the result of a clear and discernible intention. I think it's rather a result of INattention.

Let me re-phrase it more simply. Which way do you think the writers of the current, fourth edition of the rules, want Broad-Minded to function? As a massively-powerful advantage that acts as an automatically-successful reaction roll, worth likely dozens of points, yet "accidentally" put it in the wrong section and even related it specifically to a disadvantage (That specifically affects your behavior) rather than any of the social advantages (That do affect other's reactions), OR, that it is simply supposed to mean that you try to get along with strangers and aliens? Do you seriously think it's the former, or do you think the whole thing could be cleared up perfectly by an eretta that fixes the grammar so as to avoid the rare misunderstanding?

And... Not even touching the example thing? You've been going on and on about how our reading of the quirk is wrong, I'd like to see a good, solid example of how you think the various levels of Xenophilia and Broad-Minded (Being a "trivial form of Xenophilia") are supposed to be played.

I believe the rules are designed to accomodate all kinds of play, including sedentary stories that involve little 'action'.

As I recal, Kromm has been pretty clear and specific that GURPS was designed assuming "adventuring" play. It does work quite well for other styles, too, but that was the baseline 4e was structured around.

[nerdvana]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

A player innocently buying this Quirk is told one thing by the rules and then, judging by comments here, is surprised by any of a variety of potential 'interpretations' by the GM to turn it into a real functional quirk.

My take on this is that it is a contract. Anyone blindly entering a contract without understanding it deserves what they get. I.e. as a player it is your duty to discuss things that are contracts with the GM with him or her.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

A player innocently buying this Quirk is told one thing by the rules and then, judging by comments here, is surprised by any of a variety of potential 'interpretations' by the GM to turn it into a real functional quirk.

I'm going to have to echo what someone else said. If they see a disadvantage, and interpret it in a way that gives them a very powerful advantage with no disadvantages, and take that with the intention of it working as an advantage instead of a disadvantage (Rather than, say, asking about it), they have no grounds to complain when the GM says "No." That's pretty severe Munchkinery there, not innocence.

And if a player feels screwed because they didn't get their massively powerful ability for the cost of getting an extra character point, they're pretty petty.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I see what you're saying but to me it seems rather that it includes a drawback that you need to bear in mind to access the benefit. IMO it doesn't extinguish or fully counteract the benefit.

Then I guess you and the game designers might just dissagree. That's okay, though, some people still say that Berserk should be an advantage, not a disadvantage.